Context is key. How and why did this disconnect come about? In the USSR it's mostly due to WW2 related reasons in China because of post-feudal reasons dank

i need to go and buy congolese slaves now brb

yes, and after going that path we can't know for sure if the leaders will drop socialism or not; the people need blind faith, we don't know if there would be a Stalin or a Khruschev

I think we should keep this sacred as possible, how can we know at this point that the party is lying to keep in power or not?

There was never a Stalin or a Kruschev, but anyone who disagreed was removed, so, from the perspective of materialism, there was.

Which is why these purely phenomenological descriptions are ... cancer.

I get why it's attractive. The western mindset ought to react to current year politics as though besieged.

Some are willing to sharpen the knives and gather the resources.

@OF-8 How much do they pay you?

how can a planned economy and a restoration of capitalism be the same?

whoever claims to mark the USSR as capitalist because of the five year plan is completely reactionary

https://discord.gg/UVhsP

Better: https://discord.gg/VeS7meG

https://youtu.be/y7ndeiintE0

"Atheism is a crutch for people who can't accept the reality of god"

🤔

lmao

lololol

@Blebleh >I think this breaks the myth that we need a strong leader and party to get the power.
The USSR made many mistakes but learned and adapted using what worked, accumulating with Stalin in the 5 year plans, which was highly centralised. From my perspective, to say that we do not need this or that is being too dogmatic. We can learn from history and many paths have already been trodden. Practically I do not see where any anarchist 'structure' proved successful to such a degree.

@Deleted User It needs to be built yet on such scale. But I say that in a dogmatic form because we have to take a path and I want to avoid corruptibility as possible, which I think could prevent too authoritarianism but more important deviationism and the restoration of capitalism

It doesn't mean that I reject collaborating with people that support the USSR or want to help us

@Blebleh Your concern towards corruption may be warranted or it may be paranoia. The way to tell the different is to observe authority which is grounded in material reality. Intellectually it will be easy to determine whether an authority is corrupt or not, depending on its adherence to scientific principals. When you can prove that an authority is not doing what is in the best interests of the collective, only then are your concerns merited. However, having resistance right from the beginning is not rational.

I put a special focus on emerging truly representative structures

Your assumption is that authoritarianism is always corrupt. An adage I have only heard from reactionaries who do not like a particular kind.

I don't say that it's always corrupt, but corruptible

I'd prevent it from the beginning as possible

By 'representative' structures, do you mean democracy?

yes, but not this one

not bourgeois democracy

Isn't democracy also corruptible?

no if the delegates are watched closely, recallable and totally delegated

a proliteriat one is much less corruptable too

but yeah there should be a state regulating it

and guns

because kulak

@Blebleh Let me clarify, you are saying, democracy is incorruptible?

democracy in your phrase is ambiguous

I think a consensus democracy with a culture of revision is good

combined with a delegative democracy (liquid democracy) for irreconciliable factions